Driscoll’s Lawsuit Alleges Company Failed to Disclose Presence of Forever Chemicals in Strawberries

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Driscoll’s, Inc. has failed to disclose that its strawberries are contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), known more commonly as forever chemicals.

Want to stay in the loop on class action lawsuits that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter. 

The 62-page lawsuit says that although Driscoll’s advertises that its conventional strawberries are subject to “rigorous food safety and quality standards,” the company has failed to disclose the presence, risk of, and/or use of persistent fluorinated pesticide compounds linked to forever chemicals and PFAS-related compounds. At the same time, the filing claims, Driscoll’s, reportedly the world’s largest berry company, has effectively “greenwash[ed]” its farming and manufacturing practices, branding its farming and growing operations as environmentally friendly and safe despite the presence and/or use of forever chemicals. 

“These representations [are] central to Driscoll’s branding and consumer appeal because modern consumers increasingly pay premium prices for foods (especially fruit and berries) that they believe are safer, cleaner, and subject to heightened quality controls,” the complaint reads. 

Related Reading: PFAS Drinking Water Lawsuits

According to the suit, forever chemicals are a large class of synthetic substances that are harmful to humans and the environment. The term “forever chemicals” stems from the substances’ resistance to breaking down or biodegrading due to their exceedingly strong molecular structure, the case explains. 

The suit emphasizes that PFAS are toxic and carcinogenic, and known to cause a variety of serious health issues through exposure or, more typically, ingestion.

Central to the Driscoll’s class action lawsuit is the company’s brand identity, which is rooted in food safety and its claims of employing extensive oversight measures, including pesticide controls, third-party audits, water monitoring, and quality assurance to deliver “only the finest berries,” the case relays. Driscoll’s also touts its apparent commitment to sustainability, informing consumers that the company “see[s] economic performance as inseparable from social and environmental performance,” among other representations, the suit shares. 

The class action suit accuses Driscoll’s of “greenwashing” its operations by relying on marketing claims, sustainability initiatives, and corporate communications that lead reasonable consumers to believe the company is committed to environmental stewardship throughout its agricultural processes. 

Although Driscoll’s portrays itself as “a company that operates in harmony with the environment and prioritizes long-term ecological health,” the lawsuit contends that reasonable consumers do not expect premium strawberries to contain PFAS residues or PFAS-related compounds and would not have purchased Driscoll’s strawberries (or would have paid less for them) had they known the truth. 

“Having elected to market its Strawberries as subject to exceptional food-safety and quality controls, Driscoll’s had a duty to disclose facts that would materially alter how a reasonable consumer understood those representations,” the suit summarizes. 

According to the case, Mamavation reported in May 2026 the results of independent lab testing that identified multiple pesticide residues on Driscoll’s strawberries, including fluorinated pesticide compounds and/or PFAS-associated compounds. In particular, the lawsuit says, the testing found that the Driscoll’s strawberries contained residues from “12 different pesticides, eight of which are considered PFAS ‘forever chemicals.’” 

The Mamavation report generated significant buzz in the news and on social media, the suit mentions. 

Per the complaint, Driscoll’s “knew or should have known” that a reasonable consumer would consider the possible presence of forever chemicals in the company’s strawberries material information. 

“No where [sic] on the clamshell plastic box that Defendant champions as innovation in packaging and marketing does Driscoll’s disclose that its Strawberries contain PFAS or that Driscoll’s uses, and allows licensees to use, PFAS-laden pesticides to produce its Strawberries,” the suit states. “To the contrary, Defendant only states its trademarked phase [sic] ‘Only the Finest Berries.’” 

The Driscoll’s strawberries lawsuit looks to cover all California residents who, during the applicable period, bought Driscoll’s strawberries for personal, family or household use, and not for resale. 

In a statement to legal publication Law360, a spokesperson for Driscoll’s stated that the company “reject[s] the allegations in this lawsuit and believe[s] they are without merit.” 

"As a family-owned company, food safety, quality, and integrity are fundamental to who we are,” the company said. “We maintain robust food safety and compliance programs and rigorous standards designed to support compliance with applicable regulatory requirements." 

Looking for the class action lawsuit definition? We’ve got you covered.